by Naresh Jotwani for the Saker Blog

Fair warning: This is an indictment of so-called ‘economists’ of the modern world, many of whom often behave like a pestilence in human form.

As we all know, the original Greek word for ‘economics’ meant ‘managing the home’ or, almost equivalently, ‘the skill of managing the home’.

‘Economists’ today presume to advise countries — and sometimes even the world at large! — about how ‘our collective home’ should be managed. Their tone is always one of self-confidence bordering on arrogance, reflecting the fact that ‘academic economics’ — or ‘ivory tower economics’ — is a booming business today.

Professorships, tenures, grants, consultancies, awards, TV shows, graduate students … all the modern indicators of this thriving academic business are visible. Perhaps never before in history have academics garnered so much power.

But the fact remains that the proof of a pudding lies in eating it — not in how famous, smart or well-networked the chef might be who makes the pudding.

For ‘economics’, therefore, the ‘proof of the pudding’ lies in how well we are ‘managing our collective home’ — which may be taken as a single country, or the whole world, our collective planetary home.

To establish a practical reference — away from all ivory towers! — I need to indulge in a bit of self-assessment. I am a fairly good ‘home manager’ myself, in a literal and ‘down-to-earth’ sense. My family members and friends acknowledge this fact. At home, we have trained ourselves to be prudent, to live within our means, not to be lazy, to recycle, to avoid gossip and false show … et cetera. These are old-fashioned virtues, no doubt, but they are working for us in the twenty first century.

On the whole, our home is faring quite alright — perhaps worth a ‘B’ grade in the academic scheme; sometimes things do go a bit awry, but such is life.

Therefore this natural question arises in my mind: How well is our ‘collective home’ faring, the one which ‘expert economists’ profess to manage on our behalf?

Clearly, the world as a whole is faring very poorly.

Sure, this or that corner of the world is faring better — offering much opportunity for preening and self-praise. But the overall scene is dismal. Crime, pollution, damaged ecosystems, hunger, disease, waste, unrest and conflict are rife — and growing.

Such performance does not exactly inspire confidence in the persons or groups of persons who pride themselves on being the ‘managers of the collective home’.

Yes, the the average lifespan of a human being has increased over the past century, due to improvements in medical services and hygiene. Also, billions of people today have mobile phones and TVs et cetera. Food production has kept up with population growth. Such recent achievements are often cited by ‘expert economists’ to persuade us that the world is much better off today than in the past — as though they had anything to do with any of these achievements!

Scientists, engineers and doctors do not preen themselves as much ‘economists’ do!

‘Eminent economists’ claim to understand what is happening in the world. The mightiest leaders of the world pay attention to what ’eminent economists’ have to say, for example at Davos. However, by the time things go wrong, and ordinary people suffer, both politicians and their ‘expert’ advisers are busy singing another tune!

The cycle goes on. There is never any accounting for longer term outcomes of ‘expert economic advice’ tendered — and blindly implemented.

Every human being seeks happiness in life. Children need nurture. Providing that nurture is parents’ fundamental responsibility; nurture lays a foundation for the future.

Money, corporations, stock markets, banks …. et cetera exist to improve our lives, and they should be judged solely on that criterion. Or else why should they even exist?

It is a basic economic truism — proven by history — that war is human and economic folly. Why is this simple fact not in text-books of ‘economics’?

Basic, simple home truths should be affirmed clearly in any text-book on ‘economics’. Anyone claiming to understand ‘collective home management’ must forever keep these home truths front and centre. Otherwise why should we have any faith in that dark art?

The only reason these home truths are not affirmed in this simple way is that they have in corrupt practice been deliberately stood on their head. The perpetrators of economic crimes against humanity prefer these home truths to be buried and forgotten. A victim-less crime is one in which the hypnotized victim is not even aware of the crime.

Why can any supposedly profound economic theory not produce well-being for people? And a sense of fairness and solidarity?

Why must primary producers, the foot soldiers of any economy, always be in a dire situation?

It seems that there is plenty of everything to go around, but its distribution is very heavily skewed. Not much reaches where hundreds of millions live and work. Is it not an economist’s task to show how all citizens can attain some degere of well-being?

It is no defense to say that Adam Smith, or Ricardo, or Keynes, or Marx, or some other ‘grandee economist’ did not frame the subject in these terms. So what? Either they took certain home truths as generally accepted, or they too missed the home truths.

Why should that keep us — today — from clearly asserting these home truths?

***

I would like to consider myself as just a … er… how shall I put it? … er … a good human being. That is not very ‘academic’ description, I know. One should be more careful while speaking to ‘academic economists’, avoiding ordinary words used by the hoi polloi.

I understand that — in the jargon of ‘academic economics’ — a more accurate self-description would be consumer, or producer or debtor … or perhaps all three rolled into one. In the giant, global economic machine as conceived by ’eminent economists’, I am not just one cog — but three!

WOW! And I am expected to perform obediently in all three ‘cog’ roles devised for me.

If hundreds of millions of us do that — people like me playing out our three-fold ‘cog’ roles, that is — wonders will surely happen! The world will become a perfectly operating economic machine!

WOW again! The global economy will boom, investors will receive huge returns, bank profits will soar, stock markets will boom, politicians will preen themselves, economists and businessmen will win more awards and rewards … So much good stuff will result from the simple three-fold path being shown to us by our ‘expert economists’.

Truly amazing! The burden of so much global wealth generation rests on our humble shoulders. Thanks for showing us the ways of the world, dear ‘economists’.

***

But there is a hitch, which our dear ‘economists’ probably wish we would miss.

The hundreds of millions of us, even those without so-called ‘higher education’ — are human beings, complete with our families, friends, talents, anxieties, hopes, courage … and, most importantly, self-respect. Even while we work as three-fold cogs in an economic machine, our lives matter hugely to us.

Any grand scheme of ‘managing the collective home’ which ignores these basic, common-sense human realities is bound to fail.

It matters hugely to me what I consume, what is good for me and my family, how much I save .. and so on. My life is more important to me than the abstractions and self-serving theories of the ‘grandee economists’. I know that my own happiness and peace of mind have no place in these abstractions and theories; and that these theories work to the advantage of large banks, large corporations, the uber-rich and selfish politicians.

No human being in any country should be left without basic human dignity. The rest is up to him or her — what to make of his or her life. Indeed, this is no more than simple common sense. Why can this not be factored into ‘economic’ theories — rather than the effects of calls, puts, derivatives, HFT and ETFs on the investments of the uber-rich?

Self-proclaimed ‘economists’ have two choices. They should either become more honest and responsible managers of our collective homes — or stop calling themselves ‘economists’. If they choose the latter option, they can very justifiably call themselves ‘self-appointed hand-maidens, or worse, of power and greed’.

It seems that common sense is not good enough for ‘economists’. They must strike poses — appear to be wiser, smarter and more profound thinkers than common folk. That ensures their gravy train. In reality, most of them are smooth talking con-men with no concern whatsoever for humanity.

Any honest ‘economist’ must take this professional oath:

Even granting that material inequalities will persist in societies, we should not allow even a single human being anywhere on the planet to be robbed of basic human dignity, nor a single child deprived of care and nurture. Given that conditions vary widely from one society to another, our criterion of right action shall be that of the best effort locally possible; that criterion shall not be framed in terms of monetary gains to remote investors. We shall at all times endeavour to provide the best possible care that our our collective home needs.

Upon any violation of this oath, the person concerned should not be considered an ‘economist’ — since that person is not committing to manage the collective home, but merely aidng some inmates of the home in robbing other inmates. Such actions amount to being an accessory to an economic crime against humanity.

The thoughts presented here are not rightist, leftist, capitalist, socialist or communist. The concern here is for humanity and better management of our collective homes.

The thoughts presented are therefore humanist, and also realist.

The planetary home belongs to all humans — if, that is, it can be said to belong to any human at all, given that other species have been here far longer than us.

To summarise, any so-called ‘economist’ who is not a humanist at heart is no more than a craven, spineless lackey to power, greed and fame — and therefore a rotten, unreliable manager of our collective homes.

[An alternative approach to explore ‘economics’ has been attempted by the author; please see here and here.]